What is a good bible that Roman Catholics use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter php111
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was giving a preference for those times when all you wish to do is to read. In such a case, read the Bible of your preference. I cannot say that I do not like any particular translation,although I am less enamoured of modern paraphrases. Also, it should be a Catholic Bible, although I do have a KJV too, as I am English.

I do think once you have a Bible and start reading it regularly, you will then get other Bibles and should check them one against the other, bearing in mind the different provenance of the translations. As the original question was asking which is a good Bible to read, rather than anything else, I was not going to suggest multiple Bibles. Fruitful reading to you!
 
Hi, for everyday use, I would say go for the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition), but NOT the New RSV. If you want something more modern, go for the Jerusalem Bible. However, I still have the CTS version of the Douai Rheims Bible which we were given on entry to secondary school, a convent school. It is now falling apart but is much beloved. At the end of the day, use the version that suits you, because otherwise, it probably won’t be read at all
The RSV-CE is what I prefer, because I remember reading that it is the best tradeoff between literal translation and readability. The Navarre New Testament and the Scott Hahn/Curtis Mitch Ignatius Study Bible both use the second edition, I believe (I’m not at home to check).

However, I am very confused about this, because it is not (or perhaps no longer) listed on the approved Bible list on the usccb.org website. The NRSV-CE is listed, and I thought that one had the inclusive language problems. Why was the RSV removed, and why is the NRSV approved?
 
My personal favorite so far is the Revised Standard Version- Second Catholic Edition.
 
That is an excellent question, and one that I look forward to hearing the answer to.

usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/
I may be wrong, but the “approved” status refers to its use in the Church’s liturgy, and is not a reflection upon the “goodness” of a bible. Certainly, any bible that has a Cardinal’s approbation is fine to use. I do not believe that any bible of any age has been “disapproved” for use by the laity.
 
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=625668
From EWTN:
Bible Versions and Commentaries

Liturgical Use in United States
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn. [See note on inclusive language]
Devotional Reading

A bewildering array of Catholic Bibles are available for personal use. They all have imprimaturs, but not all avoid the use of inclusive language. That use is indicated in the summary. The order is generally chronological.
  1. Douai-Rheims. The original Catholic Bible in English, pre-dating the King James Version (1611). It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, the Church’s official Scripture text, by English Catholics in exile on the continent. The NT was completed and published in 1582 when the English College (the seminary for English Catholics) was located at Rheims. The Old Testament was published in 1610 when the College was located at Douai. Bishop Challoner’s 1750 edition, and subsequent revisions by others up to the 20th century, is the most common edition. Retains some archaic English. The 1899 edition is available from TAN Books. The text is widely available on line, including EWTN’s library.
  2. Confraternity Edition. Begun in 1936 by the American bishops’ Confraternity for Christian Doctrine as a translation from the Clementine Vulgate. The publication of Pius XII’s encyclical Divino afflante spiritu (1943) caused the translation committee to switch to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Not all books were completed by the time of Vatican II (1962-1965). Those that were finished were used in the liturgy in the 1950s and 60s. Published in a dignified American idiom. Though hard to find, this edition of the Scriptures is worth possessing.
  3. Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Catholic Edition. Translated for an American audience from the original languages in the 1940s and 1950s by the National Council of the Churches of Christ, and adapted for Catholic use by the Catholic Biblical Association (1966). Considered the best combination of literal (formal equivalence translation) and literary by many orthodox Catholic scholars. Published today by Ignatius Press (Ignatius Bible) and Scepter Press, and available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.
(There is also now the aforementioned RSV-CE 2nd Ed., which primarily removes the “thees and thous” in favor of modern language.)

4.1 New American Bible or NAB (1970). Translated from the original languages by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine according to the principles of Vatican II for use in the liturgy. It was the basis of the American Lectionary from the 1970s until 2002. A good translation, but it was criticized for its changing of some traditional and familiar expressions, such as “full of grace”.

4.2 NAB with Revised New Testament (1986). A restoration of some traditional familiar phraseology. Unfortunately, it also included some mild inclusive language. No longer widely available, owing to the publication of the revised Psalms (see next entry).

4.3 NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (1991). It was due to the use of vertical inclusive language (re: God and Christ) and some uses of horizontal inclusive language (re: human beings), that the Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. This is the version of the NAB currently on sale in the United States.

4.4 Modified NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised New Testament (2000-2002). This title is of my own invention. It does not refer to any currently available Bible, but to the NAB with Revised Psalms and Revised NT, as modified by a committee of the Holy See and the Bishops for use in the liturgy. It is the text found in all current Lectionaries in the U.S… The Holy See accepted some use of inclusive language, where the speaker/author intended a mixed audience (e.g. “brothers and sisters”, instead of the older “brethren”), but rejected it in references to God or Christ, and man, where the word has anthropological and theological significance (e.g. Psalm 1:1, with reference to Adam and Christ). Whether a Bible will be made available having these modified NAB texts is not known at this time. Since they do not extend to the entire Bible, it is possible that none will be, as that would require further editing of the underlying NAB text.
  1. Jerusalem Bible (1966). A translation based on the French edition of the Dominicans of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, who translated it from the original languages. This Bible is the one used by Mother Angelica on the air. The full version has copious footnotes but is hard to find, as it has not been recently republished. A Reader’s Edition, without the full footnoting, is available through EWTN’s Religious Catalogue.
  2. New Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (1989). An adaptation for Catholic use of the NRSV of the National Council of the Churches of Christ. Although used in the American edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it was rejected for liturgical use by the Holy See owing to inclusive language in some unacceptable places. With this exception, like the predecessor RSV, it is a good formal equivalent translation (i.e. literal, but literary).
 
  1. New Jerusalem Bible (1990). A revision of the Jerusalem Bible directly from the original languages. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy, but is considered a very literary text, and comparable in quality to the NRSV in scholarship.
  2. Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992). This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. The same principle was used by ICEL to translate the Mass texts. Would be better to call a paraphrase than a translation.
 
  1. New Jerusalem Bible (1990). A revision of the Jerusalem Bible directly from the original languages. It contains inclusive language, similar to that rejected in the revised NAB by the Holy See for use in the liturgy, but is considered a very literary text, and comparable in quality to the NRSV in scholarship.
  2. Today’s’ English Version - Catholic (1992). This is the Catholic edition of the popular Good News Bible by the American Bible Society. Translated according to the principle of dynamic equivalence for readability. The same principle was used by ICEL to translate the Mass texts. Would be better to call a paraphrase than a translation.
Great info! 👍 But, no Knox Bible? I guess they were limiting comment to American English.

Personally, I prefer the D-R and Confraternity bibles. I have an RSV-2CE as well, but it gripes me that we had to “Catholicize” a protestant translation. Harumph!
 
Great info! 👍 But, no Knox Bible?

Personally, I love the D-R and Confraternity bibles. I have an RSV-2CE as well, but it gripes me that we had to “Catholicize” a protestant translation. Harumph!
Doesn’t gripe me at all. Protestant bibles often have been scholarship than Catholic ones. Catholics don’t take Scripture as seriously as they should.
 
Doesn’t gripe me at all. Protestant bibles often have been scholarship than Catholic ones. Catholics don’t take Scripture as seriously as they should.
Not quite understanding that sentence. The accuracy of a bible does not depend on the fervency of end users, but rather on the inspiration and guidance of those who wrote, handed on, translated and canonized revealed truth, no? Protestant thought can be substantially different from Catholic thought, and this produces differences in translation. Differences that have lead to disharmony and divergence of belief. I prefer to avoid that. I am not insulting your preferred bible, only rendering my non-authoritative opinion.
 
Not quite understanding that sentence. The accuracy of a bible does not depend on the fervency of end users, but rather on the inspiration and guidance of those who wrote, handed on, translated and canonized revealed truth, no? Protestant thought can be substantially different from Catholic thought, and this produces differences in translation. Differences that have lead to disharmony and divergence of belief. I prefer to avoid that. I am not insulting your preferred bible, only rendering my non-authoritative opinion.
Sorry. I meant to say that Protestant bibles often have better, more up-to-date scholarship than Catholic bibles. That’s why some of the best Catholic bibles are simply Catholic versions of the Protestant ones. RSV-CE etc.

The text of the Bible believe it or not is identical in these Protestant & Catholic versions. The difference is that the Catholic versions have the Apochrypha printed with them, and the Protestant editions do not. Also, sometimes the footnotes vary somewhat, but they do from edition to edition anyway, depending on whether they’re reading editions or study editions.

If you get a Protestant version of the RSV and a Catholic version of the RSV and compare them, you will see that the text is identical.

You will also find that the NAB, which many Catholics like, is an inferior translation, and it has been revised several times for translation errors. For many, many years, Catholics did not really study bibles and many Catholics still do not.
 
Sorry. I meant to say that Protestant bibles often have better, more up-to-date scholarship than Catholic bibles. That’s why some of the best Catholic bibles are simply Catholic versions of the Protestant ones. RSV-CE etc.

The text of the Bible believe it or not is identical in these Protestant & Catholic versions. The difference is that the Catholic versions have the Apochrypha printed with them, and the Protestant editions do not. Also, sometimes the footnotes vary somewhat, but they do from edition to edition anyway, depending on whether they’re reading editions or study editions.
The RSV-2CE, in addition to updating the language, did make changes to the text from the original RSV translation, though few and far between.

Frankly, if the NRSV-CE would tone down the inclusive language it would be a great translation.
 
The RSV-2CE, in addition to updating the language, did make changes to the text from the original RSV translation, though few and far between.

Frankly, if the NRSV-CE would tone down the inclusive language it would be a great translation.
Thanks Jason, for the clarification. The text of the bible doesn’t really contain much of the stuff that divides Protestants and Catholics. Bible maps and such from a Protestant bookstore are okay to use. Some of the devotional stuff, no. But the objective stuff about bible study, like maps & dictionaries and so on, are not too bad. They’re very well done.

And certainly, if you’re going to do some serious bible study, it’s best to get a parallel bible or look at several translations to make sure you’re understanding the words properly.
 
Sorry. I meant to say that Protestant bibles often have better, more up-to-date scholarship than Catholic bibles. That’s why some of the best Catholic bibles are simply Catholic versions of the Protestant ones. RSV-CE etc.
Who defines “scholarship”? And, what if those scholars are in error? There is no protestant authority to correct them. None. This is a danger area, as protestantism, for all of its good intentions, is defined as error.
The text of the Bible believe it or not is identical in these Protestant & Catholic versions. The difference is that the Catholic versions have the Apochrypha printed with them, and the Protestant editions do not. Also, sometimes the footnotes vary somewhat, but they do from edition to edition anyway, depending on whether they’re reading editions or study editions.
“Apocrypha”? Define this term, please.
If you get a Protestant version of the RSV and a Catholic version of the RSV and compare them, you will see that the text is identical.
Really?
You will also find that the NAB, which many Catholics like, is an inferior translation, and it has been revised several times for translation errors.
Come clean: are you really Catholic?
For many, many years, Catholics did not really study bibles and many Catholics still do not.
Neither did the first 400 years worth of Christians, as there was no bible as you believe it to be. For the record, I do not like the NAB, either.
 
Who defines “scholarship”?
Huge groups of world-famous bible scholars. The best there are.
And, what if those scholars are in error?
They’re not.
There is no protestant authority to correct them. None. This is a danger area, as protestantism, for all of its good intentions, is defined as error.
Scholarship is the yardstick for this. Many people working for centuries on this, both Catholic and Protestant, have defined the texts from old manuscripts.
“Apocrypha”? Define this term, please.
There are a few books that are in the Catholic bible that are not in the Protestant bible. About 8, if I remember correctly. I’m surprised you don’t know this.
Come clean: are you really Catholic?
Yes. 100%.
Neither did the first 400 years worth of Christians, as there was no bible as you believe it to be.
It wasn’t bound as a bible for a long time. It was individual texts that were used by the Church, you are right. The Gospels were written by the first 150 years or so after the Resurrection, though, and in use by the Church.
For the record, I do not like the NAB, either.
Yes, it’s a sloppy translation. And it’s been revised for errors several times, yet many uncorrected editions are circulating around in peoples’ libraries.

And about Protestants: As I said before, virtually all of the stuff that divides us from regular Protestants (baptists, etc) is only five hundred years old or so, and it’s not in Scripture, which predates all that.
 
Huge groups of world-famous bible scholars. The best there are. They’re not. Scholarship is the yardstick for this. Many people working for centuries on this, both Catholic and Protestant, have defined the texts from old manuscripts. There are a few books that are in the Catholic bible that are not in the Protestant bible. About 8, if I remember correctly. I’m surprised you don’t know this.
Yes. 100%. It wasn’t bound as a bible for a long time. It was individual texts that were used by the Church, you are right. The Gospels were written by the first 150 years or so after the Resurrection, though, and in use by the Church. Yes, it’s a sloppy translation. And it’s been revised for errors several times, yet many uncorrected editions are circulating around in peoples’ libraries. And about Protestants: As I said before, virtually all of the stuff that divides us from regular Protestants (baptists, etc) is only five hundred years old or so, and it’s not in Scripture, which predates all that.
Very interesting views, I must admit.
 
“Apocrypha”? Define this term, please.
There are a few books that are in the Catholic bible that are not in the Protestant bible. About 8, if I remember correctly. I’m surprised you don’t know this.
This is the Protestant definition. The seven books plus additions to Esther and Daniel which Protestants do not include in their list of the canon are called the deuterocanonical books by the Catholic Church. The name refers to those books not found in the Jewish bible but considered by the Church to be Sacred Scripture. The Catholic definition of apocrypha is reserved for a long list of non-scriptural writing such as the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 and 4 Esdras, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.
 
Apocrypha - The 14 books of the Septuagint included in the Vulgate but not considered uncanonical by some; erroneous; fictitious. That is the difinition of Apocrypha a word used by Jews and Protestants to refer to the books of First and Secound Maccabees: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and the book of Daniel’s appendix of Susanna, and Bel, and the Dragon. All included in the Old Testament scrolls Jesus the Christ was farmiliar with a taught from.
Catholics refer to these books as “Deuterocanonical” to indicae that they are canonical even though disputed by some.
These books were removed by a Jewish councial from the Old Testament Canon around 100AD. My personal theory is they were removed to further damn the Christian letters circulating around at the time by excluding all Canon that was not written originally in Hebrew or in Palestine.
 
Apocrypha - The 14 books of the Septuagint included in the Vulgate but not considered uncanonical by some; erroneous; fictitious. That is the difinition of Apocrypha a word used by Jews and Protestants to refer to the books of First and Secound Maccabees: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and the book of Daniel’s appendix of Susanna, and Bel, and the Dragon. All included in the Old Testament scrolls Jesus the Christ was farmiliar with a taught from.
Catholics refer to these books as “Deuterocanonical” to indicae that they are canonical even though disputed by some.
These books were removed by a Jewish councial from the Old Testament Canon around 100AD. My personal theory is they were removed to further damn the Christian letters circulating around at the time by excluding all Canon that was not written originally in Hebrew or in Palestine.
And here is a huge problem: It was the remnants of the Pharisees, after the destructon of the Temple in 70 AD that decided these books were not inspired and excluded them from their “canon”. But, not all Jews hold to that canon. In fact, some hold only to the Pentateuch, or first five books of Moses, while others hold also to the wisdom books, but not to the prophets. The 39 book OT is of the Pharisees - thus, the reformers used the Pharisee’s OT canon! As a Christian, one need not be degreed in ancient history, or a scriptural scholar to see the the error in that.
 
This is the Protestant definition. The seven books plus additions to Esther and Daniel which Protestants do not include in their list of the canon are called the deuterocanonical books by the Catholic Church. The name refers to those books not found in the Jewish bible but considered by the Church to be Sacred Scripture. The Catholic definition of apocrypha is reserved for a long list of non-scriptural writing such as the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 and 4 Esdras, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.
Correct. I was trying to get the respondant to identify exactly what was meant by the term, since the the balance of the reply seemed to me to be rather unorthodox in view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top